Talk:Singularity Reactor
Artificial black hole, eh? I wonder what happens when the containment field drops. --Pryde2000 10:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC) *That's why the XE hasn't lost a naval engagement in thousands of years. No one wants black holes in their systems. :P (Meant as a joke!) --Balsa 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC) *Well, some Earth physicists currently believe that solar rays bombarding our atmosphere create millions of extremely small black holes each day--which near instantaneously collapse. Which, obviously we don't die from; we weren't even aware of such since the relatively recent. So, depending on the size, they might not be all that dangerous if the containment field drops. Then again, they might be terribly dangerous, as I don't know the size of them, nor how size relates to gravitational pull, etc. Just thought I'd bring such up. Popular Science had an article on them a handful of months back. -- 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC) **Yeah, I was doing research on black holes last night, which got me thinking how I wanted these reactors to work. I can likely fabricate some pseudoscience to buff this article up, but, frankly, I'm too lazy to do it right now. :P I'm thinking, though, that with the collapse of the field, the black holes would simply dissipate. --Balsa 01:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC) ***Think of it this way. XE ships main strength is the reactor, because the amount of power created by these things allow them to mount the number of weapons that they do, at the power level that they have. I'm assuming here that your Naval guns are more powerful than standard turbolasers. If the black hole were to just dissipitate, then there's no weakness, is there?--Mir 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC) ****Truth, but creating a black hole in a system from wreckage is way too much of a risk to take. I'm thinking that there is a chance for a black hole to actually occur, but fleet tactics and engineering is designed to take that into consideration. For example, heavily damaged ships would be pulled back from combat. Also, I'm considering only having the Singularity Reactor act as a combat reactor, in that for non-combat use, a "standard" anti-matter (or dark matter?) reactor would be used to supply power. Actually, that sounds a lot more logical. --Balsa 05:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC) *****You could always save the black hole reactor for your biggest ships and just use a standard reactor on the smallest ones. It's more cost effective that way. ;) --Pryde2000 09:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC) ******It would make the most sense to just have it on the biggest ship. Otherwise, you're using up double the space for the two reactors on ships and you're going to suffer in other places for that. At least with the 14k one you can argue you have the space for it. And set up the time that it takes to switch between the two. There can be complications there that get ironed out. If it is on the largest ship, then it can have the black hole creation thing if the reactor gets out of hand.--Mir 13:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC) *Yeah, I could limit it to only the largest ship, but then that doesn't flow with how I envisioned the XE. The other consideration is why does everything HAVE to have a downside? Just because a piece of technology is better than another piece doesn't mean it needs to have a corresponding negative attribute. It could be that this new tech is just inherently better. Or, maybe, the only negative aspect is a cost increase. This idea that a positive attribute must be balanced with a negative attribute really wreaks of the whole "We're actually playing DnD and not writing stories" thing. --Balsa 02:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC) **I think the Kearny-Fuchida drive in Battletech would have been so much cooler if it accidentally sent you back in time. --Pryde2000 06:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC) ***We don't talk about that novel that introduced aliens to CBT. --Balsa 03:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)